Letters -- Published June 11, 2013

At the recent Linden Unified board meeting, I was not given the opportunity to explain my vote concerning Michael Gonzales.

Comment

recordnet.com

Writer

Posted Jun. 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Posted Jun. 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

At the recent Linden Unified board meeting, I was not given the opportunity to explain my vote concerning Michael Gonzales.

The entire board understood that Superintendent Gonzales could no longer effectively serve the district. We all agreed action was imminent. We could do nothing, put him on paid administrative leave, ask for a resignation and negotiate a buyout of his contract, or terminate him. The type of action taken was the point of my disagreement.

I could not support putting him on paid administrative leave indefinitely. I felt this would not only be costly, but would prevent us from moving forward. We would not be able to hire a new superintendent until the former superintendent's paid leave ended with a settlement, a legal battle or something unknown. We have spent well over $70,000 on legal fees.

Secondly, confidentiality laws require the board to protect employee privacy. Because of those restrictions, we are not able to share the facts, as I would like.

Thirdly, is the issue of timing. This board was not informed about any allegations until 14 months after the first complaint was made to our attorney. After we were informed, we immediately moved to hire a new attorney to investigate and address the allegations. The investigation was completed and reported to us. Action was taken and was supposed to be administered to respective parties. Our board's leader did not follow up with the attorney making sure that corrective action was taken.

There is a bill before the state Legislature being sponsored by an organization interested in banning hunting. Assembly Bill 711, authored by a Los Angeles assemblyman, will ban the use or sale of traditional lead ammunition in California.

Proponents make their argument under the guise of science and say hunters and sport shooters can easily obtain alternative metal ammunition, like bronze and copper. However, what they won't tell you is that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms classifies these alternative metal ammunitions as "armor piercing" and they are illegal to make, sell or import unless you are granted a waiver, and no waivers have been granted in a number of years. The result will be a de facto ban on hunting. Just considering the reduction in hunting licenses alone, they estimate $9 million in losses for the state.

Further, AB711 requires the state Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide alternative ammunition to hunters at low cost or for free. Once again, the Department of Finance is raising a concern that since alternative ammunition is significantly more expensive and not easily available, costs to the state to fund this portion of the bill range from $700,000 to $11 million of new money needed. Taxpayers are still asked to foot the bill.

AB711 is beginning its journey in the state Senate after narrowly passing the Assembly. Most Valley Assembly members did not vote to support it. Hopefully, we can count on our local senators, Cathleen Galgiani and Tom Berryhill, to protect hunting and the jobs and revenue created by the outdoors industry by opposing AB711.